The paper cup that contained our trial for the new coffee from Starbucks reminded me of a theme I might explore at the PSFK Conference San Francisco – it’s about whether big companies are really doing enough to support the drive towards sustainability, whether they can or whether we need a new breed of alternative brands to replace them.
Look at the picture. Can Starbucks really only provide cups with 10% recycled material? Why not 100%? Am sure there’s a standard excuse but if all they can muster is 10% why do they bother saying it on the packaging. And I think of something Jeff Staple said in this clip at the PSFK Conference New York 2008 where he talked about trying to make one out of 2000 Nike shoe designs environmentally sustainable. The question I ask is, why not all 2000 now?
I know that there’s an argument that it’s these big companies who need to lead sustainable change but with them taking so long to take up the cause fully (rather than dip their toes), you begin to wonder whether it’s time to leave them all behind and work with a new crop of companies who really ‘get it’.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Actually, its really hard. No one has succeeded to make a coffee cup that is made from 100% recyclable materials. Whoever does will make a fortune. The inside of the cup has to be sealed, withstand high temperatures, last a long time, insulate, and prevent it from burning the person drinking the cup.
I recently heard a story about a major media conglomerate executive who was trying to green his company and gave up after a long search. At least this cup does not trick the buyer by just putting 100% recycled! on the sleeve.
Joe Conyers
April 21st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
There’s also a very important distinction between “recycled” and “post-consumer recycled”, post-consumer being the important distinction. For all we know, the cups have more recycled materials, but they chose to accentuate the post-consumer aspect.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I think the wider point about whether current companies are doing enough or whether it will require radical change and the emergence of new brands is a hugely important question. We talk of chaotic climate change, planetary pollution, species extinction and the responses are light bulbs, recycling and 5% reductions etc. We need revolution and not evolution. We need a equivalent of what happened in IT in the 80s and 90s (rise of Intel, Microsoft, Google etc) but times ten. We need a new breed of companies to completely change the way we live, work and consume.
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:04 am
i don’t think waiting for the emergence of new brands is the answer. it’s like waiting for the government to fix something.
we need the emergence of a new consumer. the reason Sbux can get away with a 10% post-consumer cup is because of that picture: we all still pay for it.
until, en mass, society turns it’s back on many of the easy fixes and comforts that, in turn, are often harmful to our environment and our bodies, nothing will change.
this isn’t a doomsday message…and I believe it can be done. but there needs to be a change.
for instance, i’ve begun bringing in a mug from home for our likemind events. i know…very small. but it’s one less cup. and one less cup is a start.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:53 am